Microsoft rep faces tough questions at Linux Summit

The Linux Collaboration Summit—which took place last week in San Francisco—primarily focused on the Linux platform, but one of the most vigorous discussions that took place during the event looked beyond the confines of the kernel and gave participants some insight into Linux's relationship with the broader operating system market.

The operating system roundtable discussion, which was called "Why Can't We All Just Get Along," included Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin, Sun community and developer vice president Ian Murdock, and Microsoft platform strategy director Sam Ramji.

Much of the discussion related to Microsoft and its rocky relationship with open source software. Ramji, who runs Microsoft's open source software lab and plays a role in influencing Microsoft's open source strategy, faced some tough questions from fellow panelists and the audience. He was not flustered by the inquisition and responded with cogent thoughts and some witty retorts.

He said that Microsoft's commitment to delivering compatibility with open source software is largely driven by user demand. Indeed, a growing number of companies are deploying Apache, PHP, and other open source software components on Windows-based servers. Microsoft seems to have noticed this trend and has been working to build closer ties with the Apache community. Microsoft joined the Apache Foundation last year and has already contributed some of its code to an Apache interoperability effort relating to service-oriented applications. Microsoft also adopted Apache's permissive open source license for its Web sandbox initiative instead of using one of its own two OSI-approved shared source licenses.

Ramji said that one of his roles is to educate people—both within and outside of Microsoft—about the importance of open source software to the Windows platform. There is no dichotomy between Microsoft and open source software, he claimed. He said that open source software offers an opportunity for Microsoft and should exist across all platforms. He also emphatically distanced himself from Microsoft's anti-Linux marketing campaigns and said that he doesn't support that approach to competition.

He expressed concern that critics of Microsoft wrongfully conflate Linux with open source. In his view, competition between Windows and Linux doesn't constitute opposition to the open source development model. He said that there is a lot of potential for collaboration between Microsoft and the broader open source software community on a wide range of interoperability issues if the major stakeholders can come together as technologists rather than ideologists.

Patent disagreement

The problem, however, is patents. In the past, Microsoft has refused to collaborate with certain vendors on interoperability issues and has forcefully said that it will not do so unless those vendors commit to intellectual property agreements. The nature of these agreements is intrinsically hostile to unencumbered downstream redistribution, and they are consequently viewed as unpalatable by many within the open source software community. Microsoft has since softened its position on this issue, but is still largely stonewalling on unencumbered interoperability.

When asked about the patent problem, Ramji said that individual patent concerns can be addressed one at a time, going forward. He said that Microsoft is in favor of certain patent system reforms and is often one of the biggest victims of patent abuse under the current system. Although it seems a bit distasteful for Microsoft to be playing the victim card in this case, it's true that Microsoft is a very frequent target of patent infringement litigation and has been forced to pay out an enormous amount of money in patent dispute settlements.

Although Ramji said that Microsoft stands behind the need for change in the patent system, he also stated that the company sees valid reasons for keeping software patents intact. Ramji cited university research as one example of an area where he believes that patents are encouraging technological progress.

His arguments in favor of software patents seem tenuous. The cost of litigation has vastly outstripped the revenue generated by software patent licensing since the 90s. It's also worth noting that the software industry, and Microsoft itself, was enjoying significant profit and growth before software patents had even been deemed permissible in the United States.

Ramji cited Microsoft's collaboration with the Samba project as an example of a situation where Microsoft encouraged interoperability by agreeing to license patents to an open source project under more permissive terms. That agreement, however, was practically mandated by the European Commission under the terms of its 2004 antitrust ruling against Microsoft. It seems unlikely that Microsoft would agree to such terms in the future if not forced to do so. The agreement also required key Samba developers to sign controversial nondisclosure agreements.

When members of the audience were invited to question the panelists, Samba developer Jeremy Allison stepped up to the microphone and criticized Microsoft's refusal to provide adequate clarity about which protocols can be safely implemented by third-parties without having to first obtain patent licenses. Ramji suggested that Microsoft's Open Specification Promise could potentially serve as a vehicle for providing clarity on the issue, but he acknowledged that Microsoft can and should do more to provide predictability about which of its technologies are covered by patents.

Allison concluded the friendly confrontation by walking up to the stage and giving Ramji an award. The certificate satirically refers to Microsoft as a FAT troll—a reference to the company's recent patent battle with Linux-based GPS vendor TomTom over patents that cover backwards compatibility features in Microsoft's FAT filesystem.

Although it's clear that Microsoft still has a lot of work to do if it wants to earn the trust of the open source software community, Ramji's presence at the event and participation in the panel reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Linux community.

Zemlin, who criticized Microsoft during his keynote presentation earlier in the day, acknowledged that there is room for a productive—albeit somewhat antagonistic—relationship between Microsoft and the Linux community. Despite "fundamental disagreements," he says, they can keep each other honest.